> "I've never seen or heard a credible source claim they were harmful to human health."
> Which says a lot about the media you read.
Apparently he only reads scientifically valid media, and not tinfoilhat publications.
(But unfortunately it is true, at least here in Europe, that even respectable media easily echoes totally unscientific falce claims about GMOs occasionally.)
Just because your submission has zero votes and no comments doesn't mean you are doing it wrong, it just isn't as interesting as other stuff. I do browse your contributions but I don't have votes to give to new topics, I also try not to comment on anything because it is generally not appreciated when I do. Other people don't even have accounts.
Perhaps if submitting something would cost some karma you could submit as much as you want without feeling guilty. If additional submissions in the same hour/day would be more expensive you could chose to ignore that too.
When democracy was implemented, representation was the technology to use. There was no consideration for the citizen to actively participate in the decision making process because there was no means that allowed for it. The option was never on the table.
They/we might have been a bit slow at times, democratic governments always tried to use the best technology available. Before the internet there was television, before television there was radio. The later 2 [at least] gave us top down communication. The voter could, all of a sudden, stay informed in real time. This was a big deal. We made huge progress right there.
We have internet now, we are obligated to use this to improve our democratic system.
It looks like it today (at least to me) but the reason we have representatives was not because we are to stupid to mow our own lawn. On the contrary, democracy assumes the voter to be competent. Would we not be competent enough to vote on specific things it automatically follows that we are not competent enough to vote at all.
We are the first generation to use representation as an excuse not to get involved.
Our politicians are suppose to guess what we want. Some end up choosing something that makes them rich. Not much of a coincidence there? It might be possible in theory for a representative to represent your interests better than you. But it isn't likely or even a believable scenario.
We might not agree, they do provide us a great service actually. One can never have to many different opinions to consider. It seems online American opinions about what Europe should do outnumber the European opinions 10 to 1. They told us a million times what they think about it.
What do the Russians think? And the Chinese? And the Africans? No one knows? Assuming they even have an opinion about it?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GPYzY9I78CI